Rangers... the weakest of classes?

[LokiDR]

Besides a few spells, what is the advantage of ranger with a bow? Why do ranger ambidex and TWF not apply to double weapons, like the quarterstaff? Why do rangers get so many abilities at first level?

I won't say that the ranger class sucks, as I once did about another class, but I will say I think the class has some design flaws. First, the inital level problem. Next, the narrowness of the definition; ambidex, TWF, track. Finally, the spell selection seems limited.

None of this means that ranger is a weak class. I have seen several rangers kill mounds of enemies. I think, like monk, ranger is a class that needs to be played with a lot of thought.

 

[Gaiden]

...here we go again

Check out Christian's link for an extensive analysis of the class with good arguments both for and against the ranger.

I personally believe that most of the cons come from the side who has never played a ranger or does not know how to play one effectively - just my $.02

 

[jfiz]

bleh...*how* should a ranger be played then?

Certainly one of the biggest defenses I see used in favor of the PHB ranger is that players who find the ranger lacking do so because they (aren't playing/don't know how to play) the ranger properly.

It has also been my experience that posters who invoke that defense stop short of describing how a ranger should be played, to be appropriate as they suggest.

For the love of Mike, will somone for once *Please* post a detailed description that illustrates the "appropriate" way to play a ranger to full effect?

If folks could do that, it might help the players who contend the class is weak to understand why they are finding it so, and maybe they can then learn just how the Ranger is intended to be played, and chose it and play it appropriately.

Anyone? Bueler? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

 

[Stalker0]

Re: bleh...*how* should a ranger be played then?

Certainly one of the biggest defenses I see used in favor of the PHB ranger is that players who find the ranger lacking do so because they (aren't playing/don't know how to play) the ranger properly.

It has also been my experience that posters who invoke that defense stop short of describing how a ranger should be played, to be appropriate as they suggest.

For the love of Mike, will somone for once *Please* post a detailed description that illustrates the "appropriate" way to play a ranger to full effect?

If folks could do that, it might help the players who contend the class is weak to understand why they are finding it so, and maybe they can then learn just how the Ranger is intended to be played, and chose it and play it appropriately.

Anyone? Bueler? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

Well said, just hope you don't get flamed for it

 

[Crothian]

Re: bleh...*how* should a ranger be played then?

Certainly one of the biggest defenses I see used in favor of the PHB ranger is that players who find the ranger lacking do so because they (aren't playing/don't know how to play) the ranger properly.

It has also been my experience that posters who invoke that defense stop short of describing how a ranger should be played, to be appropriate as they suggest.

For the love of Mike, will somone for once *Please* post a detailed description that illustrates the "appropriate" way to play a ranger to full effect?

If folks could do that, it might help the players who contend the class is weak to understand why they are finding it so, and maybe they can then learn just how the Ranger is intended to be played, and chose it and play it appropriately.

Anyone? Bueler? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

I can offer some advice, but there are a lot of factors here. It help to play the Ranger in a certain way as well as having a DM that allows one to take advantage of abilities like Shard O'Glase mentioned.

First of all make sure you take advantage of the skills. Rangers get a good selection of class skills. With a high int a ranger should be second only to the rogue in skill ability. Now if the DM doesn't put in reasons to use lots of skills or if the PCs don't try to take advantage of the skills they have, this strength is negated.

Tracking is a very powerful ability. The ranger can get information on encounters before they happen and help the party to prepare or even aviod them.

The two weapon fighting ability is a strength of the Ranger, but can be traded out as it is suggested for classes to do in the DMG. So, choose a fight ing style that fits with the concept and messes with the party.

Spells are a great addition. None are powerful in combat, but many are utility spells that will help in certain cituations. With a scrib escroll feat you will never want for spells. With craft wand that becomes even better since all your spells are first through fourth they can all be made into wands. Craft Wondrous Item is another great feat for rangers as the magic madse is permanent and can be given to anyone.

Animal Companion. These guys can turn a battle or be used as spies or message carriers, or any many other useful ways.

Favored Enemy, target and hunt these guys. Take a broad catagory that can be encountered anywhere at different levels.

Now the DM can limit and make many of these abilities next to useless like he can with any class.

 

[Felix]

I thought I had a great ranger in a short lived campaign. Twas a gnoll with human as favored enemy. He was sneaky, he was alert, could track, strong,...

Didn't go the tank route, but rather the support/scout route. I think this is where the ranger should be. Seems to me that the ranger and the rogue are different sides of the same coin. Rogue for the city, rangers for the wild. (Of course you can have urban rangers and wilderness rogues, but generally speaking, this is true.)

With that attitude in mind, INT becomes a much more important ability for the ranger. Perhaps more so than WIS. For spells, WIS can be raised slowly over the levels. INT's +X skill points will outweigh any WIS bonus to spot and search in the long run.

As far as ability importance, I'd rank them like this:
1 DEX
2 INT
3 CON
4 STR / WIS
6 CHA

Similar to what I think my rogue's abilities would work out as, but less concerned with dealing with other people.

That's how I suggest you play a ranger. Like a rogue, but for the woods.

 

[LokiDR]

I agree that the ranger really earns his share before and after the battle, scouting ahead and tracking enemies.

Here is my problem, however. If you picture the "standard" party of characters you have a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. I think we all agree that this is a balanced party suitable for almost any campaign. A party that fits anything. Where does the ranger fit? D&D is supposed to have fighting, and traps, and dialog. Tracking? That doesn't fit my normal definition, though it isn't a strech. Paladin and barbarain replace fighter. Bard can make up for lost rogue, at least for most traps situations. Druid for cleric, sure. Sorcerer for Wizard.

Where is the poor ranger? He can't really replace a fighter, since that really isn't what ranger is meant for. Definately not healer. Roguish? Only scouting, not nuts and bolts of dungeons. So where should a ranger fit in "standard" party of 4?

Ok, I know there is no such thing as a "standard" party, but there is a point here. If you were going into campaign you knew nothing about, with a DM you haven't even met, what you pick for the 4 characters in the party?

 

[CCamfield]

Well, once you go beyond dungeons, tracking can become important. As a wilderness oriented character, not surprisingly he's going to be most useful in... the wilderness!

Yeah, I know I'm showing my biases here.

 

[LokiDR]

Well, once you go beyond dungeons, tracking can become important. As a wilderness oriented character, not surprisingly he's going to be most useful in... the wilderness!

Yeah, I know I'm showing my biases here.

And if you are going to the king's court, you want to be able to mix well with the crowd, so you want a bard. I didn't say that the ranger is useless, I asked where he fit. Traps and fighting almost always come up. Tracking doesn't. A high level wizard or cleric can find others just as well using spells as your ranger can with skills.

 

[MThibault]

The point about campaign-context bears repeating, if all you run are dungeon crawls then rangers, druids and bards are going to seem weak. Rangers and druids are even more out of their element in extra-planar campaigns. I don't think that rangers are completely out of place in a dungeon crawl, but they have to choose their animal companion accordingly and emphasize stealth over tracking.

Well, in my experience the ranger can't replace a fighter (but then again, I don't think a paladin can either, unless you are going against an inordinant amount of undead and outsiders) in all situations, but he's definitely a sound 2nd rank fighter -- I would say equal to the Monk as far as pure combat ability. So, no he's not the best, but he'll get his share of kills, and he might be the best combattant when dealing with his favored enemy.

Can the ranger replace the Rogue? Not if you have a lot of traps to overcome. A wizard can handle a few traps here and there, though. So you might not need that niche filled in your party. The ranger *can* compete with the rogue in stealth and awareness. Hide/Move Silently allow the ranger to scout with the rogue -- perhaps even better depending on the choices that the rogue has made. With his better HP, BAB and weapon selection, the ranger is more survivable than a rogue if he's discovered scouting solo. Sneak attack is great, but if your opponent survives the first round you're screwed.

Rangers used to get a bonus to the surprise roll, now they have Spot and Listen as class skills. Rogue is the only other class that has Spot as a class skill. In my opinion this is one of the most useful skills, it often is the difference between surprising or being surprised. Even in a dungeon a ranger with a maxed out spot is very beneficial.

The spells are also nice. Outdoors, there are lots of options for covering a retreat (Entangle, Windwall) as well as covering the party's progress (Nondetection, Pass without trace). The cure spells won't keep the party afloat in lieu of a cleric, but they are great for quick fixes -- much like a Paladin's lay on hands. Sure a druid can do this, but the druid is at best a mediocre combatant and definitely a lousy scout.

So how do you play a ranger in a dungeon crawl? When he isn't scouting ahead, you put him in the front rank. His spot/listen will be best put to use there and, unlike the rogue, if it lets him down he will usually be able to take the heat until the rest of the party can get organized. Very often the Ranger is the only one covering the party during the surprise round. If you have a rogue, the two can work well together as scouts. I find that the ranger pulls the rogue's fat out of the fire on a regular basis.

Cheers.